Polywell 3D model
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:13 pm
Polywell 3D model
I am following the Polywell since 2007, when I have first seen the google tech talk held by the late Dr. Bussard.
I have modelled a polywell with the 3D CAD system Pro/ENGINEER. The magrid has a diameter of approximately 1m, which in my opinion should be enough to use superconducting coils, hence this design could be run in steady state mode. The tubular section of the coil-containers has a diameter of 150mm. The containment has a diameter of approximately 3m and has ports for the electron guns, ports for ion injectors and instrumentation are missing.
This is not an engineering model, but can be seen as an "artists rendition". It is a "quick and dirty" model I have done in a
couple of hours.
Some images compressed in a *.rar archive can be found here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/270667110/polywell.rar.html
They can be downloaded 10 times, so if the link has expired, just notify me and I will post them again.
I have modelled a polywell with the 3D CAD system Pro/ENGINEER. The magrid has a diameter of approximately 1m, which in my opinion should be enough to use superconducting coils, hence this design could be run in steady state mode. The tubular section of the coil-containers has a diameter of 150mm. The containment has a diameter of approximately 3m and has ports for the electron guns, ports for ion injectors and instrumentation are missing.
This is not an engineering model, but can be seen as an "artists rendition". It is a "quick and dirty" model I have done in a
couple of hours.
Some images compressed in a *.rar archive can be found here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/270667110/polywell.rar.html
They can be downloaded 10 times, so if the link has expired, just notify me and I will post them again.
I have done some preliminary work on costing out a Polywell test reactor with superconductors and a 1 meter bore 3 Tesla set of coils with a spare can be done within a roughly $10 million total budget (coils, buildings, power supplies, instruments, people, etc).
Operating temp around 4K (IIRC).
Operating temp around 4K (IIRC).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:13 pm
That is my estimate too. That would be a fairly small budget compared to the 100 to 200 million dollar that Dr. Bussard estimated for the large version. This way a steady state Polywell can be tested and the concept can be proven for a tenth of the budget. If this one works, and fusion output is high enough, the cofidence level would spike and it would be much easier to make the decision for a much larger prototype.
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
At this point, is the 3T 1M polywell redundant to the Navy effort wrt proving the polywell concept? By the time such a project got up and running, would we have gained more than 6 months? Perhaps it would be best to get the backing group in place to go for a larger machine the moment success is shown? Just musing...
On the other hand how soon will we (vs just the Navy) find out that polywell is the can-do machine, once success is proven?
Cheers
On the other hand how soon will we (vs just the Navy) find out that polywell is the can-do machine, once success is proven?
Cheers
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Pulsed machines don't always show up the problems of continuous operation.mvanwink5 wrote:At this point, is the 3T 1M polywell redundant to the Navy effort wrt proving the polywell concept? By the time such a project got up and running, would we have gained more than 6 months? Perhaps it would be best to get the backing group in place to go for a larger machine the moment success is shown? Just musing...
On the other hand how soon will we (vs just the Navy) find out that polywell is the can-do machine, once success is proven?
Cheers
Milestone points for the Navy according to the latest contract are:
Code: Select all
April 2010 - 8 months hence
April 2011 - 20 months hence
There is no break out of exactly what is expected to be accomplished at each milestone.
April 2011 may be for a continuous operation (100 milliwatt pB11 - WB-9) machine. Or that may come later.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I suspect you mean MEGA watt there. A 100 mW machine wouldn't be much use, as it would run just over break-even.MSimon wrote:April 2011 may be for a continuous operation (100 milliwatt pB11 - WB-9) machine. Or that may come later.
Still, having April 2010 and 2011 as 'expected' milestones for working units is a very interesting prospect. By April '11 they still have to pour the concrete for the ITER foundations.
Because we can.
Thers has been some debate weather the mW in the contract was a misprint and should have been MW. I'm sure it was not Megawatt if an actual test article is intended instead of just a proposed design. A 100 milliwatt steady state test reactor would be big news. The reliability of the results would be much greater than the ~ 1 milliwatt pulsed WB6 (has WB7 exceeded this?). The burning of boron 11 in a steady state machine at any power level will be truely amazing. If the results also support the scaling predictions the results will be stupendous.Stoney3K wrote:I suspect you mean MEGA watt there. A 100 mW machine wouldn't be much use, as it would run just over break-even.MSimon wrote:April 2011 may be for a continuous operation (100 milliwatt pB11 - WB-9) machine. Or that may come later.
Still, having April 2010 and 2011 as 'expected' milestones for working units is a very interesting prospect. By April '11 they still have to pour the concrete for the ITER foundations.
The Navy contracts seem to be open ended. I suspect this allows the Navy to keep control of the technology while only spending chump change. Details may may not be forthcoming unless developed by a third party or forced by international treaties concerning fusion research.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
This seems like a good question for Dr. Nebel. "Rick, was their a typo in the contract posted on the Internet?"Stoney3K wrote:I suspect you mean MEGA watt there. A 100 mW machine wouldn't be much use, as it would run just over break-even.MSimon wrote:April 2011 may be for a continuous operation (100 milliwatt pB11 - WB-9) machine. Or that may come later.
Aero
Also, the 'power output' specified can be anything from the raw fusion power output to the actual juice delivered to the grid. Even if they were to make a 100mW NET power reactor, I'd be very happy since they would be the first to run completely break even.D Tibbets wrote:Thers has been some debate weather the mW in the contract was a misprint and should have been MW. I'm sure it was not Megawatt if an actual test article is intended instead of just a proposed design. A 100 milliwatt steady state test reactor would be big news. The reliability of the results would be much greater than the ~ 1 milliwatt pulsed WB6 (has WB7 exceeded this?). The burning of boron 11 in a steady state machine at any power level will be truely amazing. If the results also support the scaling predictions the results will be stupendous.
I mean, wouldn't it be awesome to see the thing running on YouTube and see someone 'pull the plug' (get the support hardware running off-grid) to prove they can self-sustain the unit? Even that's history being made!
Because we can.
100 mW net is not enough net power for stability. If it takes 5 MW to run the machine a 5.5 MWe output would be workable and 6 MWe would be better. Might as well build a 12 MWf machine and deliver 5 MWe+/- to the grid.Stoney3K wrote:I mean, wouldn't it be awesome to see the thing running on YouTube and see someone 'pull the plug' (get the support hardware running off-grid) to prove they can self-sustain the unit? Even that's history being made!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'm about 99.999% sure milliwatts has to be a typo. Because a net power reactor would require MW inputs and outputs (remember, r^5 gain scaling), it would be hard to even measure a difference that small, so it makes little sense to specify it. They would have said "just barely net power" or one watt or Q>1 or something along those lines.
It's much much more likely they're talking about 100MW, given that this was the number EMC2 plans were using all along for a first Polywell reactor.
Somebody just didn't hit their shift key.
It's much much more likely they're talking about 100MW, given that this was the number EMC2 plans were using all along for a first Polywell reactor.
Somebody just didn't hit their shift key.
TallDave - I agree with you but my other favorite choice is that 100mW is a place holder, allowing for argument if it comes out to be 1 kW, or 10 W or even 5 mW. Success could be claimed if the measured output is anywhere close to break even. And if it comes out near 100 Mw, well ... that would be special!
Aero
As I have posted above I have interpreted the output as 100 milli watts. But, I admit that it could have been 100 MW if the 'aviability of funds' means a few 100 million dollers more rather than a few million more. This would suggest that the confidential results have been convincing and only a little more insurance is needed before decision makers may persue Bussard's originally proposed path of testing a couple of more small scale machines, then going all out....... [one can dream... ]TallDave wrote:I'm about 99.999% sure milliwatts has to be a typo. Because a net power reactor would require MW inputs and outputs (remember, r^5 gain scaling), it would be hard to even measure a difference that small, so it makes little sense to specify it. They would have said "just barely net power" or one watt or Q>1 or something along those lines.
It's much much more likely they're talking about 100MW, given that this was the number EMC2 plans were using all along for a first Polywell reactor.
Somebody just didn't hit their shift key.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.